Congressional term limits has constitutional amendment-level support.

[Direckshun]

To review, to pass a constitutional amendment, you need 2/3 support of both the House and the Senate, and 3/4 of the states.

We now have that with the American public.

The electoral college is not far behind -- 60% support.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159881/am...l-college.aspx

Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College
Virtually no partisan disagreement on these long-discussed constitutional reforms
by Lydia Saad
January 18, 2013

PRINCETON, NJ -- Even after the 2012 election in which Americans re-elected most of the sitting members of the U.S. House and Senate -- as is typical in national elections -- three-quarters of Americans say that, given the opportunity, they would vote "for" term limits for members of both houses of Congress.



Republicans and independents are slightly more likely than Democrats to favor term limits; nevertheless, the vast majority of all party groups agree on the issue. Further, Gallup finds no generational differences in support for the proposal.

These findings, from Gallup Daily tracking conducted Jan. 8-9, are similar to those from 1994 to 1996 Gallup polls, in which between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans said they would vote for a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that members of Congress and the U.S. Senate can serve.

More Than Six in 10 Would Abolish Electoral College

Americans are nearly as open to major electoral reform when it comes to doing away with the Electoral College. Sixty-three percent would abolish this unique, but sometimes controversial, mechanism for electing presidents that was devised by the framers of the Constitution. While constitutional and statutory revisions have been made to the Electoral College since the nation's founding, numerous efforts to abolish it over the last 200+ years have met with little success.

There is even less partisan variation in support for this proposal than there is for term limits, with between 61% and 66% of all major party groups saying they would vote to do away with the Electoral College if they could. Similarly, between 60% and 69% of all major age groups take this position.



Gallup has asked Americans about the Electoral College in a number of ways over the years, and regardless of the precise phrasing, large majorities have always supported doing away with it. That includes 80% support in 1968 and 67% in 1980 with wording similar to what is used today.

Compared with today, support for abolishing it was slightly lower from 2000 through 2011, ranging from 59% to 62%, when using a question that asked Americans if they would rather amend the Constitution so the candidate who wins the most votes nationally wins the election, or keep the current system in which the winner is decided in the Electoral College.

Gallup trends show that Republicans were far less supportive than Democrats of abolishing the Electoral College in late 2000, when Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush had lost the popular vote, but was fighting a legal battle to win Florida and therefore the Electoral College. Since then, however, Republicans have gradually become less protective of the Electoral College, to the point that by 2011, a solid majority of Republicans were in favor of abolishing it.

Bottom Line

Large majorities of Americans are in favor of establishing term limits for members of the U.S. House and Senate, and doing away with the Electoral College. Despite sharp polarization of the parties on many issues in 21st century politics, Republicans and Democrats broadly agree on both longstanding election reform proposals.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

As someone who insists on original intent....your acceptance of the "modern" and corporatist perversion of free speech and the first amendment would have the founders rolling over in their graves, and exercising their second amendment rights to put your whackjob lunatic fringe in their rightful place.

What limitations would you like to see enacted from a campaign finance amendment?

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by listopencil

What limitations would you like to see enacted from a campaign finance amendment?

Full and complete transparency, coupled with gutting/eliminating the role "SuperPacs" and third party/special interest contributions....focused on establishing individual and corporate contributions that go DIRECTLY to candidates and political parties that clearly (and immediately) identify who gave how much to who and when. There should be an online website that would post contributions DAILY--not submitted in monthly or quarterly reports to the FEC. Limits would dictated, but could be quite generous--as long as we know which politicians are getting money from whom.

Then, let the chips fall where they may....political accountability for candidates just might shame the bastards into doing their real jobs instead of prostituting themselves to the highest bidders.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Full and complete transparency, coupled with gutting/eliminating the role "SuperPacs" and third party/special interest contributions....focused on establishing individual and corporate contributions that go DIRECTLY to candidates and political parties that clearly (and immediately) identify who gave how much to who and when. There should be an online website that would post contributions DAILY--not submitted in monthly or quarterly reports to the FEC. Limits would dictated, but could be quite generous--as long as we know which politicians are getting money from whom.

Then, let the chips fall where they may....political accountability for candidates just might shame the bastards into doing their real jobs instead of prostituting themselves to the highest bidders.

I don't have a problem with that except the bolded part. It looks like the "SuperPACs" were created by the court of appeals for the DC circuit. I'd like to see that issue bumped to the Supreme Court rather than be addressed by amendment.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I don't have a problem with that except the bolded part. It looks like the "SuperPACs" were created by the court of appeals for the DC circuit. I'd like to see that issue bumped to the Supreme Court rather than be addressed by amendment.

Citizens United vs. the FEC was a 2009/2010 US Supreme Court case that did precisely what you are suggesting. They addressed it, and in a 5-4 decision....the conservative justices on the court became the very judicial "activists" they so often demonize and criticize by creating a new interpretation (SHAZAAM!) of the first amendment that says, in essence, that unlimited amounts of money donated from secret and nefarious sources to support or defeat certain political candidates/ballot issues in elections....is, now, considered "speech." (As long as it is spent by "third parties/special interest groups/PACs" and not the directly by the parties or candidates themselves.)

It leaves open the practice of candidates selling themselves to the highest bidders (highly partisan Super-PACS, masquerading as special interest groups, or third parties.) Hence, you have groups like MoveOn.org and the Koch Bros-backed "SuperPacs" whoring themselves publicly....hiding behind thinly-veiled claims they are merely exercising their first amendment rights...in accord with the Citizens United decision.

Ain't partisan politics that ensure plutocrats, corporations, and the wealthy continue to OWN our government grand???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission

The court was given an opportunity to revisit the issue last summer, but declined.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Citizens United vs. the FEC was a 2009/2010 US Supreme Court case that did precisely what you are suggesting. They addressed it, and in a 5-4 decision....the conservative justices on the court immitated the "activists" they so often demonize by creating a new interpretation of the first amendment that says, in essence, that unlimited amounts of money donated from nefarious sources to support or defeat certain political candidates in elections....is, now, considered "speech."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission

The court was given an opportunity to revisit the issue last summer, but declined.

Well, then **** them. Viva la revolucion.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Well, then **** them. Viva la revolucion.

Yep.

It leaves open the practice of candidates selling themselves to the highest bidders (highly partisan Super-PACS, masquerading as special interest groups, or third parties.) Hence, you have groups like MoveOn.org and the Koch Bros-backed "SuperPacs" whoring themselves publicly....hiding behind thinly-veiled claims they are merely exercising their first amendment rights...in accord with the Citizens United decision. And the SC just rubber-stamped the bitch. Twice. That's why we need an amendment. And it's a helluva lot more important than either of the ones the OP champions.

We are always hearing that Americans wonder why pols on neither side of the aisle can't get shit done, and work for "the people." They want shit done.

Well, shit ain't getting done because politicians' asses have been bought and paid for, lock-stock-and-barrel by our plutocratic elites on both sides of the political spectrum. That's why we don't merely have just political gridlock, but rather an all out mutha-fuggin' mother of all stalemates....designed to screw the working and middle class of this country right into the poor house.

Seriously, every single state in the country should legalize prostitution everywhere, because if politicians can get away with being the biggest whores on the friggin' planet...who can blame a workin' girl for trying to pay the damn bills?

It's times like this we ALL must protect the Second Amendment (despite tragedies like Sandy Hook,) because at some point shit may just have to get real....

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Yep.

It leaves open the practice of candidates selling themselves to the highest bidders (highly partisan Super-PACS, masquerading as special interest groups, or third parties.) Hence, you have groups like MoveOn.org and the Koch Bros-backed "SuperPacs" whoring themselves publicly....hiding behind thinly-veiled claims they are merely exercising their first amendment rights...in accord with the Citizens United decision. And the SC just rubber-stamped the bitch. Twice. That's why we need an amendment. And it's a helluva lot more important than either of the ones the OP champions.

We are always hearing that Americans wonder why pols on neither side of the aisle can't get shit done, and work for "the people." They want shit done.

Well, shit ain't getting done because politicians' asses have been bought and paid for, lock-stock-and-barrel by our plutocratic elites on both sides of the political spectrum. That's why we don't merely have just political gridlock, but rather an all out mutha-fuggin' mother of all stalemates....designed to screw the working and middle class of this country right into the poor house.

Seriously, every single state in the country should legalize prostitution everywhere, because if politicians can get away with being the biggest whores on the friggin' planet...who can blame a workin' girl for trying to pay the damn bills?

It's times like this we ALL must protect the Second Amendment (despite tragedies like Sandy Hook,) because at some point shit may just have to get real....

We desperately need a viable third party that will create a platform that is acceptable to Democrat and Republican voters. I think the Libertarians can be that third party but, so far, they lack that charismatic candidate and appear to be unwilling to dilute their message enough to be palatable to the average voter.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by listopencil

We desperately need a viable third party that will create a platform that is acceptable to Democrat and Republican voters. I think the Libertarians can be that third party but, so far, they lack that charismatic candidate and appear to be unwilling to dilute their message enough to be palatable to the average voter.

I used to think so to. However, the system is too rigged against third party success, especially these days. Until we have more competive elections, and reform the single-member plurality system of elections by requiring majority votes and run-off elections--third parties are doomed.

Over the last 30-40 years, democrats and republicans have become further entrenched in their strongholds in blue and red states, respectively--as well as redrawing district lines in states to ensure control of state legislatures. The practical effect has been to increase the number of "safe" districts and states, while simultaneously reducting the number of truly competitive districts and states. The result has been the much, much more partisan and extemist rhetoric that we have seen over the past 20 years. The result is even if a third party rises to challenge one of the two parties, they have NO chance against the entrenched party in more than 40-45 states.

Take the 2012 election. Forty states were not even "in play" during the election--as victories by the controlling party in that state were all but assured before a single vote was cast. The only question was the degree to which the opposing party might be able to take seats or build a more formidable minority to challenge the majority party on the issues. The only question in about 40 of the states is how red or blue, in a given election, the state will be. "Purple" states in which we have a truly "competitive" partisan discourse and debate, now number ten or less.

As impressive as Nate Silver's performance has been in the last two Presidential elections, modern partisan politics has really become a case of focusing your analysis on the "purple" states--you know the so-called "swing" states that the media obssessed on. The reason the other 40 states don't matter anymore--is because the outcome is pretty much already pre-determined before the actual votes are cast.

Third parties would not change this a bit. What could change it some, is more moderate candidates from both sides of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans have become puppets for ideological extremist factions of their respective party. In the 70s and 80s, the Dems were controlled by their whack job lunatic fringe; the DLC and Clinton brought them back toward the center in the 90s, and during W's presidency. During W and Obama's administrations, it's the Reps who have been hijacked by an ideological extremist faction--the tea party.

Until the Reps do what the Dems did in the 90s (tame their lunatic fringe, and move to the center,) they will continue to scratch their heads and lose elections that could have won--like 2012. Right now, Chris Christie may be the only one in the party who seems to have figured this out. Hopefully Christie, and similarly situated republicans (possibly Jindal, Julian Castro, Rubio, etc) will seize the party back from windbag/douchebag-types likes Rand Paul, Michelle Bachman, Scott Walker, Rick Scott, and their minions, and tame their lunatic fringe in the process.

That's the best hope for moderation, compromise, and consensus toward not a bigger and more expensive government, but rather a more effective government that is actually capable of responding to the pressing issues of the day--rather than fiddle as DC and the country burns. Ironically, it is only this scenario...edging ever closer to truly running the country off of a cliff, that could make a third party really relevant as our only hope. We just aren't quite there yet, IMHO. And frankly, for the good of the country--let's hope we can avert that.

[listopencil]

Well said, and I agree that the more realistic option is for both parties to back away from the fringe on a consistent basis.

[BucEyedPea]

Depends on which fringe you choose. One person's fringe is another person's hero.
The mainstream is who doesn't have the answers—just more of the same. Our Founders came from the fringe.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Depends on which fringe you choose. One person's fringe is another person's hero.
The mainstream is who doesn't have the answers—just more of the same. Our Founders came from the fringe.

The Constitution should be the center. The farther you get from that document the more "fringe" you become in my opinion.

[mlyonsd]

I've been asking for this for years. Ever since the republicans half assed try to pass it in the 90's.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by notorious

Making them live in their district will not only force them to listen to their people, but it will also keep them away from each other.

They do listen to the people in their district, that is part of the problem. This is the cause of a majority of the pork we see in legislation.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by tredadda

They do listen to the people in their district, that is part of the problem. This is the cause of a majority of the pork we see in legislation.

Listening to their voters is a problem?


WTF?


Pork is the result of working side deals for votes, which shouldn't be allowed on any bill.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Depends on which fringe you choose. One person's fringe is another person's hero.
The mainstream is who doesn't have the answers—just more of the same. Our Founders came from the fringe.

Your heros are named anyone named "Paul" or, obstensibly, all the other douche-bag and whackjob ideologues who carries water for the lunatic Tea Party douches of the right...duh.

Your contempt, disdain, and childish dismissiveness of REAL people whom Lincoln, TR and all REAL Republican "democrats" understood to be the genuine majority upon whom this country was founded and built...for if they are the "RINOS" and your ilk is the "genuine" Republican party....then, please, by all means...enjoy your 40+ years of wandering in the desert of American politics and government.

Just Sayin'....